Display:
I am of the belief that Ahmadinejad's very existence is a direct result of Bush's unilateral classification of Iran as an enemy soon after 9/11. He is serving a purpose for Iran which is to counter the rhetoric being thrown against it.

leaving aside the idiotic "axis of evil" speech, and since I've started quoting STA, let's do it again:

The U. S. position is unclear, perhaps because of an internal struggle within the Bush administration between those who advocate trying to reach an accommodation with Iran led by Secretary of State Rice and the hawks led by Dick Cheney.
Let me make a point that I cannot emphasize enough. The Iranian position is no more clear.

What is missing from most articles about Iran is the general fracture that exists in the country. This is new; it is a first in modern Iran. As a country, it has usually had a real unity.

The Iranian regime is no longer regimented! It is fractured for the first time in modern Iranian history. The difference between Afghanistan and Iran, or at least one of the differences, used to be that no governing body in Afghanistan could hold the country together. Hence warlords.

In Iran, however poorly managed, the government in place -- Shah's or the current retards -- had a discernible political line.

The infightings and backstabbings are pushing Iran into a new territory. I am not even talking about conservative vs. moderates [sic]. Even the conservatives can't agree on practically anything. Ahmadinejad is in place because they cannot deal with each other.

The war talk helps create a semblance of unity where there is none. An attack against Iran would create unity, among the rulers, but perhaps even among the people.

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 04:39:18 PM BST



Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 12:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am aware of the fracture and even Ahmadinejad's election was questionable. But I cannot see Iran becoming secular as it once was nor do they appear to be stagnating as an authoritarian theocracy. One would hope that as negotiations , under the excuse of iraq security, goes on it results in some common understandings and coexistence. China certainly developed over time along that path and one could see Iran doing the same. One can only hope.
by BJ Lange (langebj@gmail.com) on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 01:56:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series